Bruno Haible writes:
> It is bizarre, though, that the warning only appears at the first function
> definition. Seen on Cygwin 1.7.2:
...
> AC_TRY_COMPILE does add a function for 'main', but this deserves a comment at
> least.
Yes, the entire semantics of this flag on Windows appears strange.
>
Hi Simon,
Sorry, this thread was in a dark corner of my mailbox where I didn't see your
ping requests.
> >> Bruno, how about this patch?
> >>
> >> /Simon
> >>
> >> diff --git a/m4/visibility.m4 b/m4/visibility.m4
> >> index 35a6dc0..06537d6 100644
> >> --- a/m4/visibility.m4
> >> +++ b/m4/visibil
Bruno, the patch looks simple to me, any objections to pushing it? I'm
seeing a lot of useless warnings when building for Windows without it.
/Simon
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Bruno, ping? Ok to push?
>
> /Simon
>
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> Mike Gran writes:
>>
>>> Hello-
>>>
>>> If I us
Bruno, ping? Ok to push?
/Simon
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Mike Gran writes:
>
>> Hello-
>>
>> If I use visibility.m4 on a platform with a recent GCC (4.x) on
>> Cygwin, the visibility.m4 correctly discovers that gcc can compile with
>> -fvisibility="hidden". But, on Cygwin (and probably mo
Mike Gran writes:
> Hello-
>
> If I use visibility.m4 on a platform with a recent GCC (4.x) on
> Cygwin, the visibility.m4 correctly discovers that gcc can compile with
> -fvisibility="hidden". But, on Cygwin (and probably most non-ELF) gcc does
> not actualy implement the visibility and emit
On 10/31/2009 05:34 PM, Mike Gran wrote:
Hello-
If I use visibility.m4 on a platform with a recent GCC (4.x) on
Cygwin, the visibility.m4 correctly discovers that gcc can compile
with -fvisibility="hidden". But, on Cygwin (and probably most
non-ELF) gcc does not actualy implement the visibility
